Audi Says Production Q6 e-tron Will Define The Segment, Be A Game Changer

2 years ago by Mark Kane 40

Audi e-tron quattro concept - Electric drivetrain with up to 370 kW

Audi e-tron quattro concept – Electric drivetrain with up to 370 kW

Audi e-tron quattro concept

Audi e-tron quattro concept

According to the extensive and detailed article over at Green Car Congress, the upcoming all-wheel-drive Audi Q6 e-tron (e-tron quattro) will set the new bar for vehicle handling and advanced vehicle dynamics control.

Audi bets on a three motor layout, with an axial motor for the front and two separate co-axial motors for the rear wheels.

Two motors in the rear brings capability of control of both rear wheels independently and if Audi manages to tame the software, e-tron quattro will “turn like a hunting dog after a rabbit”. You could even do a burnout with one wheel if the software allow for this.

The two motor system for the rear is borrowed from the R8 e-tron. Siegfried Pint, Audi’s new Head of Electric Powertrain notes:

“The new two-motor rear axle system leverages the work Audi has already done with the two-motor rear-wheel drive on the R8 e-tron sports car. The two powerful motors (individual output is not yet specified) enable superb lateral dynamics with huge potential for torque vectoring, Pint noted. The rear motors offer a good balance between maximum and continuous output.

The design provides direct control of the wheels; there is no differential mechanism as in some other electric vehicle designs—a key point, Pint emphasized, for a number of factors including weight, response, and span of control.

The key is clearly the software control of the interplay of the torque of the two motors—not just for performance, but also for safety. Regulators want to ensure that the car will drive straight, Pint said. “Mis-torque vectoring” must be precluded. A massive differential torque of 5,000 N·m is possible, Pint added. (Recall the 1,800 N·m differential torque for the RS5 quattro above.)

The Audi team is very far along with the high level Torque Control Manager, which works together with the Electronic Stabilization Control (ESC) to distribute the power between the rear wheels, and on the regen controls, Pint said. There is still work to be done on control and coordination with the front motor, and with controls for the other dynamic forces involved with vehicle movement.”

Source: Green Car Congress

Tags: , ,

40 responses to "Audi Says Production Q6 e-tron Will Define The Segment, Be A Game Changer"

  1. Speculawyer says:

    Is there anyone with less credibility that Audi as far as delivering what they announce as fars as EVs go? They must have announced and cancelled at least 5 E-Tron projects.

    1. ElectricPower says:

      The same Audi lies from 2009 about BEVs and FCEVs. If they can make car like Model S at close price they will do it, but they still CAN NOT.

    2. Assaf says:

      +1 speculawyer! Happy Holidays!

    3. Forever green says:

      +1 Speculawyer.

    4. Mayhemm says:

      TRUTH!

      Particularly annoying since I am currently in the market for the vehicles they keep announcing but never delivering.

  2. “…Will define a segment” is a rather bold statement unless you imagine that there will be no innovation in the next 3 years. By the time this car actually shows up, there may be quite a few similar cars with better than or equal performance.
    And, while Audi does not do pickups, I would love to see a company release an all-electric F-150 style pickup and a good size all-electric van.
    Currently, it feels like all EVs are 5-door hathbacks. This is almost the same thing.

    1. EVcarNut says:

      How about an Audi Self Accelerating A random 5000 Model…I am familiar with their Engineering, Denials…& Their “BS”

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      John Christian said:

      ” ‘…Will define a segment” is a rather bold statement unless you imagine that there will be no innovation in the next 3 years.”

      Well, if you define the “segment” narrowly enough… For example, “BEVs made by Audi with three electric motors”…
      😀

      Altho if the above posts are correct, this “segment” would only be one narrow category of automotive vaporware. 😉

  3. James says:

    Charging network. A reliable charging network. It can handle like a Formula 1 car and it would still be worthless without a Tesla-style network. Focus first on this and let the car come after.

    1. An all encompassing charging network sounds really great until you actually purchase an EV. Then you realize that you rarely ever use Public charging because its so much cheaper and easier to charge your EV at home. I have driven all-electric drive cars since 2011 and use public charging about 3 or 4 times a year. If you are driving several hundred miles multiple times each month, then I would take a longer look at a 2016 Volt, or hold out for the Model 3 or Bolt.

      1. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

        I too would use public charging 3 to 4 times per year.

        But that just explains why long-distance BEV can work despite the slow refueling times. It doesn’t say that it’s not necessary.

      2. arne-nl says:

        “I don’t need it so why would anyone else need it?”

        I hear this so often, and it’s wrong. What if the public charging infrastructure wasn’t there? What would you have done those 3-4 times per year? Rent a gasser? Take the bus?

        People base the buying decision of their car for that once in a year event: vacation. If it can’t do that in a reasonable way, they’ll look elsewhere.

      3. John Hansen says:

        Your theory ONLY works if you never drive on long trips. Tesla’s chargers are on sort highways, specifically for long distance travel and specifically away from people’s homes so that they will charge at home when they can. So yeah, you’re wrong about not needing a charging network.

    2. mustang_sallad says:

      Audi has already announced that they will deploy networks of 150kW DCFC stations (CCS) in both Europe and North America. VW group gets no respect around these parts…

  4. pjwood1 says:

    “Regulators want…”. No, any idiot would want rear slip limited, and Audi could have left it there.

    This company needs to recognize it’s their finger on the trigger of the gun aimed at their head.

    1. Three Electrics says:

      Mechanical LSDs are on their way out, I think. Too heavy, too inefficient.

  5. Ontario Leaf says:

    Software at VW is magic. If it managed to hide emissions, it will manage to control the two rear motors…

  6. ffbj says:

    Define This: (!)

  7. arne-nl says:

    It must be very painful to stand empty handed against 2 brilliant vehicles from Tesla.

    1. vdiv says:

      Right! Even without Tesla the Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV, the Volvo XC90 T8, the BMW X5 edrive 40e and the Porsche Cayenne S E-hybrid (same parent company as Audi) pretty much have defined the PHEV crossover market.

      Two separate motors with active torque vectoring on the rear axle would be fine in some edge cases, but really an overkill in most others. Wonder if the two motors would also introduce some limitations or complications on the half axles/CV joints and the suspension.

      Hope they really build and sell the thing regardless.

  8. The Teslarian fanboy comments under this article are beyond hilarious. Do you people realize that Audi has the outright win in 12 of the last 15 24 hours of Le Mans (and sister company Porsche won it this year) while a Tesla can’t even complete a single lap of the Nurburgring “at speed” without overheating? Do you seriously think that the people who engineered all those vehicles that consistently win the toughest endurance race in the world can’t design a superior BEV (which you all argue is far simpler than any gasoline or diesel car) if they dedicate their minds and money to it? (And after all the recent news, press releases, political pressure, etc., do you seriously think they aren’t doing both?) The comments I see here are the ultimate in “whistling past the graveyard,” lol.

    1. And oh, as for charging, you might want to take a look at charinev (dot) org and the “ROEV Association.” The only reason the large auto manufacturers hadn’t teamed up earlier to support high-speed charging infrastructure is that they weren’t building the longer-range vehicles that would need them. However, now that 20 or so 200-300-mile competing EVs will be rolled out within the next 12-48 months (and if you don’t believe that, you’ve got another problem) you’re going to see the chargers (upgradeable to at least 150kw and some even more) roll out concurrently. Remember, Tesla’s entire Supercharger network took only around two years to build and cost less than $200 million– a rounding error for a consortium of BMW, Nissan, Daimler, VW Group, GM, Ford, etc.

      Again, lots of graveyard-whistling in this comment thread!

      1. arne-nl says:

        Le Mans? Irrelevant distraction. We’re talking normal cars that people can use to commute, shop, go on vacation.

        You totally miss the point. It’s not that they COULDN’T if they “dedicated their minds and money to it”. It’s that they DIDN’T. That’s why they stand empty handed and let Tesla define a new segment. They have become followers.

        You’re an Audi fanboy and I feel your pain.

      2. pk says:

        “However, now that 20 or so 200-300-mile competing EVs will be rolled out within the next 12-48 months (and if you don’t believe that, you’ve got another problem)”

        I would love to see that happen. It will be a truly exciting time if this were true. I don’t really care who makes a 200-300 mile EV as long as it has the infrastructure to back it up.

      3. ffbj says:

        Hmm, well, where to begin. Sort of like looking at Christmas Dinner. Probably to the meat first.
        You typed a lot of words but did not really say much about what is, more like what could be. The ghost of Christmas yet to come.
        So sure Audi could make a great ev to compete with a future Model of Tesla, and in the past they have made some decent cars. Need I remind you of the present state of things:
        http://evannex.com/blogs/news/17235400-tesla-awards-and-accolades-a-look-back

        The future looks bright for Tesla. In regards to whom is whistling past which graveyard, well, a bit of self inspection might reveal that.

        Btw your prediction that Tesla would fall under $200 per share by the end of November, has come a cropper, but do have a Merry Christmas all the same.

        1. “…sure Audi could make a great ev… Need I remind you of the present state of things.”

          It’s hilarious when a Tesla shareholder (and I’m short, as you probably know) clings onto “the present state of things” wile owning a company pre-priced for amazing success in the year 2025 and simultaneously ignoring a very ugly (for Tesla) competitive landscape emerging between late-2016 and late-2019, cross-subsidized (and hence very aggressively priced) by huge profits on conventional cars that Tesla doesn’t have.

          “Btw your prediction that Tesla would fall under $200 per share by the end of November, has come a cropper…”

          Yes, I agree to being continually shocked by how little homework has been done by the institutions who own this stock (just look at the public proclamations by Baron, the T. Rowe guy, etc., much of which directly contradict both the competitive reality and Tesla’s own SEC filings), but more important (to me) than TSLA’s current share price is that eventually those shares will be worth “zero” because Tesla has a lot of debt and a large number of EVs will (relatively) soon be on the market, thereby bringing happiness both to EV enthusiasts AND TSLA shorts!

          1. ffbj says:

            And …I thought only Tesla had ludicrous mode.

            1. You are on fire today, ffbj. I literally laughed out loud at your previous post. Thanks for the levity.

              1. ffbj says:

                Well the fb part does stand for fireball.
                fred fireball jackson. So now you all know. My Gary Moore moment.

          2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Mark B. Spiegel

            “…when a Tesla shareholder (and I’m short, as you probably know)…”

            Well it would hardly be a surprise if you’re bitter over all the money you’ve likely lost in multiple TSLA short squeezes, but that’s no reason for anyone to pay any attention to your very biased anti-Tesla FUD, and propaganda, and your outright trolling in insulting those with a more positive outlook for Tesla.

            It’s tiresome to see such biased posts from both TSLA longs and shorts. In both camps, there seems to be an inability to separate the performance of Tesla, the company, from TSLA, the stock. With TSLA being such a volatile stock, the stock price it’s pretty well disconnected from the performance of the company.

            Reality check: Tesla, the company, is doing quite well, contrary to the consensus of predictions from financial analysts in previous years. If and when TSLA, the stock, finally gets an apparently long overdue major correction, that won’t stop Tesla from continuing to grow its market at an exponential rate. The performance of Tesla, the company, is dependent on the market for its cars. Contrary to what the anti-Tesla FUDsters want us to believe, the performance of the company is not dependent on its stock price.

      4. Three Electrics says:

        +1. If the emissions scandal has truly woken the dragon, I look forward to the finest German automotive engineering going into BEVs. And yes, the supercharger network did cost a pittance, and is easily replicated in non-proprietary form.

    2. JakeY says:

      Competing in Le Mans has zero real world relevance to production vehicles. Nissan just failed miserably in Le Mans, but they are still one of the world’s largest automakers. The goal isn’t trying to sell a viable track EV, it’s trying to sell a viable production EV that people can afford.

      As for the subject that it is drop in the bucket and easy task for a large automaker, just to use Audi as an example, they have been trying to build a viable competitor to the Roadster for 6 years now and they end up with a hand built example that probably costs 2-3x as much (no price tag yet).

    3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Mark B. Spiegel said:

      “The comments I see here are the ultimate in ‘whistling past the graveyard,’ lol.”

      Funny… the phrase “whistling past the graveyard” is precisely what popped into my mind while reading your post here.

      Re your “lol”… As they say: He who laughs last, laughs best. Seriously, Mark, do you think that the Audi badge will still appear on new cars 15 years from now? Hmmmm? To quote the Magic 8-ball: “Outlook not so good”.

      Contrariwise, Tesla’s continuing growth, year after year, continues to confound financial advisers… like you. Mark, you post over on Seeking Alpha claiming to be a professional stock adviser, don’t you? So how did those who took your advice to sell their TSLA do? How do you think they feel about your advice? [snark] But hey, there’s still a week left in the year, who knows? Maybe TSLA will manage to drop $31 and make your prediction about a below-$200 market price come true! [/snark]

      Mark, I’m guessing that those who took your investment advice re TSLA think it’s worth about as much as your posts here, and equally worthy of anyone paying attention to it.

      Oh, and in case you didn’t notice: The name of this website is “Inside EVs”. It’s not “Top Gear”, nor “Gas Guzzling Race Car Fanbois”.

      1. ffbj says:

        Is it just me, or did that post seem a bit too snarky?

  9. PVH says:

    That kind of statement from Audi is really stupid. Would it be so difficult to replace “will” by “we aim to make it” for example ?

    It is exactly like when Musk said that they will sell 500k cars annualy as from 2020. Incredbly stupid statement but would he have said “we aim to sell 500K cars per year in 2020” it would have been perfectly OK. In my native french or in their (Audi) native german language NOBODY would have goten away making such statements without making perfect fool of themselves. A cultural thing maybe.

  10. JB says:

    Competition baby! Gotta love it

  11. mustang_sallad says:

    For pete’s sake, why does every announcement about an upcoming product from a non-Tesla automaker on this website have to turn into a “but they’re not as good as Tesla” food fight? Yes, agreed, they haven’t accomplished as much as Tesla in the EV segment, that’s the whole point of the new product announcement! You should be celebrating the fact that more companies are joining the party!

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Auto makers are talking the talk about making compelling EVs, but other than Tesla, they’re mostly not not walking the walk. Given what’s said in the very first comment posted here, you seem to have picked a highly inappropriate place to make this particular complaint of yours.

      If any company is guilty of bragging about producing a compelling EV but not following thru on it, it’s Audi.

  12. Fail Cells says:

    so a car supposedly coming in 2018 will equal a Tesla in 2015. Way to go Audi!

  13. Get Real says:

    LMFAO, professional stock manipulator and FUDster Mark Spiegel tries to pull a Grinch on Christmas at Insideevs.

    Go look in the mirror and get back to driving your gas-mobile Spiegel. Like PP already stated, you offer nothing but bad financial advice and it will be fun to watch you and your followers lose their shirts in the next 3 years.
    I say 3 years because by then the Model 3 will be widely available and wildly successful as the Gigafactory churns out battery packs for Tesla cars and energy systems.
    Let me know when Audi gets around to securing its supply of batteries?